2012-00129671-CU-WT

Emily McClernon vs. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals

Nature of Proceeding:     Motion to Compel Attendance of Party Deponent

Filed By:   Thompson, Tzaddi S.

Having denied Plaintiff’s motion for a protective order, or in the alternative stay of
proceedings, Kaiser Foundation Hospitals’ motion to compel Plaintiff’s deposition is
GRANTED.

This is an employment disability discrimination action.   On March 14, 2013, Defendant
noticed Plaintiff, Emily McClernon’s, deposition for May 1, 2013.  After meet and confer
efforts, the deposition was rescheduled for June 4, 2013, however, it was cancelled
due to a conflict with Plaintiff’s counsel’s schedule. On August 20, 2013, Plaintiff’s
counsel indicated that Plaintiff was experiencing “debilitating pain that is preventing her
from assisting or participating in the prosecution of her case.”  (Declaration of Seth
Neulight, Ex. 9.)  Plaintiff’s counsel indicated that Plaintiff requires neck surgery and
would seek a protective order or in the alternative a stay of proceedings.  Plaintiff has
filed a counter motion for protective order, or in the alternative, stay of proceedings.
(Id.)  In September, Defendant re-noticed Plaintiff’s deposition for October 8, 2013.               (Id. Ex. 12.) On October 3, 2013, Plaintiff served objections to the notice of deposition
objecting the deposition date was set unilaterally and that Plaintiff was unable to
appear to due medical incapacitation.  (Id. Ex. 14.)  It appears that the October 8th
deposition was taken off calendar.

Plaintiff opposes the taking of her deposition on the same grounds as her motion for
protective order — that she is medically incapable of participating in litigation of this
matter and that she is in constant pain. (See Declaration of Emily McClernon.)  She is
also currently awaiting authorization to proceed with a recommended cervical fusion.
Plaintiff also proffers a note from her doctor stating that “patients c-spine injury
precludes any deposition, as they are typically handled.”  (Id., Ex. B.)

The motion is GRANTED for the same reasons set forth in the Court’s ruling on
Plaintiff’s motion for protective order.  Defendants are entitled to take Plaintiff’s
deposition and Plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause as to the protective order or
stay.

Plaintiff shall appear at her deposition by no later than December 27, 2013.  This date
may be extended by agreement of the parties.

Defendant’s request for sanction is DENIED.

The minute order is effective immediately.  No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule
3.1312 or further notice is required.

Item  3     2012-00129671-CU-WT

Emily McClernon vs. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals

Nature of Proceeding:   Motion for Protective Order

Filed By:  Bohm, Lawrance A.

This matter was continued to this to allow Plaintiff an opportunity to submit her doctor’s
declaration to support her motion.  The Court found that Plaintiff’s doctor’s note stating
that “patients c-spine injury precludes any deposition, as they are typically handled”
was insufficient as it failed to explain her medical health issues that preclude her from
deposition and the reasonable accommodations that can be made.

Plaintiff was directed to file and serve her doctor’s declaration by no later than
November 22, 2013.  It does not appear that Plaintiff filed and served her doctor’s
declaration as directed by the Court.

Given the above, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause for the
issuance of the protective order, or in the alternative, stay of proceedings.

Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.

The minute order is effective immediately.  No formal order pursuant to CRC Rule
3.1312 or further notice is required.